Comment by Krssst
2 months ago
As someone mostly outside of the vibe coding stuff, I can see the benefit in having both the model and the author information.
Model information for traceability and possibly future analysis/statistics, and author to know who is taking responsibility for the changes (and, thus, has deeply reviewed and understood them).
As long as those two information are present in the commit, I guess which commit field should hold which information is for the project to standardise. (but it should be normalised within a project, otherwise the "traceability/statistics" part cannot be applied reliably).
Yeah, nothing wrong with keeping the metadata - but "Authored-by" is both credit and an attestation of responsibility. I think people just haven't thought about it too much and see it mostly as credit and less as responsibility.
I disagree. “Authored by” - and authorship in general - says who did the work. Not who signed off on the work. Reviewed-by me, authored by Claude feels most correct.
To me, Claude is not a who, it's an it. Before AI, did you credit your code completion engine for the portions of code it completed? Same thing
4 replies →
I am doing the work. Claude is a tool, and I won't attribute authorship to it.
Future analysis is a valid reason to keep it, thats a good point and I agree with that.